As we wrote in our January Labor Alert, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. interpreted the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's Section 3(o) to apply to putting on and taking off a variety...more

In Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the FLSA does not require unionized employers to compensate employees for time spent putting on and taking off certain protective clothing if they have a...more

On January 27, 2014, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the term “changing clothes” found in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act), specifically at 29 U.S.C. § 203(o). This case is significant for...more

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., No. 12-417 (January 27, 2014) should serve as an impetus for all employers to review their pay practices with respect to paying employees for...more

On January 27, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held that time spent donning and doffing required protective gear was not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the terms of a collective bargaining...more

In Sandifer et al. v. United States Steel Corp., a unanimous Supreme Court clarified the meaning of "changing clothes" found in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA" or "Act"), holding that "changing clothes"...more

Sandifer v. United States Steel Corporation, U.S. Supreme Court No. 12-417, decided January 27, 2014 (appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit), is one of the rarer instances in which the Supreme Court...more

The More Things Change: U.S. Supreme Court Rules on “Changing Clothes” -
Why it matters: In a unanimous decision – save for a single footnote – the U.S. Supreme Court held that the time spent donning and doffing...more

For years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have brought class actions against employers seeking compensation for time spent by employees putting on and taking off protective gear. The numbers have been staggering, as eight figure...more

Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case of Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., Case No. 12-417 (Jan. 27, 2014), addressing donning and doffing claims in the context of a unionized steel mill. That case not only...more

Based upon a unanimous ruling from the United States Supreme Court and comments from President Barack Obama during his State of the Union address, wage and hour issues are front and center for 2014. Under the wage and hour...more

Employees who spend time putting on and taking off protective clothes, including flame-retardant outerwear, gloves, boot and hardhats, do not have to be paid for that time when it occurs before and after the work day, the...more

This week the Supreme Court held that time unionized workers spend putting on (donning) and taking off (doffing) personal protective gear is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The decision comes on the heels...more

Earlier this week, in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Supreme Court addressed whether unionized workers may be entitled to compensation for time spent putting on and taking off protective gear. The Court found that putting...more

For minimum wage and over-time purposes, Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) states that "hours worked" does not include time spent "changing clothes" if that time is excluded from working time by the...more

Unionized employers whose employees must wear protective equipment may soon receive direction on whether they must pay for time spent donning and doffing the gear. On February 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review...more

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.